Literature DB >> 10491705

Measures of auditory-visual integration in nonsense syllables and sentences.

K W Grant1, P F Seitz.   

Abstract

For all but the most profoundly hearing-impaired (HI) individuals, auditory-visual (AV) speech has been shown consistently to afford more accurate recognition than auditory (A) or visual (V) speech. However, the amount of AV benefit achieved (i.e., the superiority of AV performance in relation to unimodal performance) can differ widely across HI individuals. To begin to explain these individual differences, several factors need to be considered. The most obvious of these are deficient A and V speech recognition skills. However, large differences in individuals' AV recognition scores persist even when unimodal skill levels are taken into account. These remaining differences might be attributable to differing efficiency in the operation of a perceptual process that integrates A and V speech information. There is at present no accepted measure of the putative integration process. In this study, several possible integration measures are compared using both congruent and discrepant AV nonsense syllable and sentence recognition tasks. Correlations were tested among the integration measures, and between each integration measure and independent measures of AV benefit for nonsense syllables and sentences in noise. Integration measures derived from tests using nonsense syllables were significantly correlated with each other; on these measures, HI subjects show generally high levels of integration ability. Integration measures derived from sentence recognition tests were also significantly correlated with each other, but were not significantly correlated with the measures derived from nonsense syllable tests. Similarly, the measures of AV benefit based on nonsense syllable recognition tests were found not to be significantly correlated with the benefit measures based on tests involving sentence materials. Finally, there were significant correlations between AV integration and benefit measures derived from the same class of speech materials, but nonsignificant correlations between integration and benefit measures derived from different classes of materials. These results suggest that the perceptual processes underlying AV benefit and the integration of A and V speech information might not operate in the same way on nonsense syllable and sentence input.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 10491705     DOI: 10.1121/1.423751

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  48 in total

1.  Use of audiovisual information in speech perception by prelingually deaf children with cochlear implants: a first report.

Authors:  L Lachs; D B Pisoni; K I Kirk
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Assessing spoken word recognition in children who are deaf or hard of hearing: a translational approach.

Authors:  Karen Iler Kirk; Lindsay Prusick; Brian French; Chad Gotch; Laurie S Eisenberg; Nancy Young
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 1.664

3.  Talker and lexical effects on audiovisual word recognition by adults with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Adam R Kaiser; Karen Iler Kirk; Lorin Lachs; David B Pisoni
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 2.297

4.  Specification of cross-modal source information in isolated kinematic displays of speech.

Authors:  Lorin Lachs; David B Pisoni
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 5.  Some behavioral and neurobiological constraints on theories of audiovisual speech integration: a review and suggestions for new directions.

Authors:  Nicholas Altieri; David B Pisoni; James T Townsend
Journal:  Seeing Perceiving       Date:  2011-09-29

6.  Development of audiovisual comprehension skills in prelingually deaf children with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Tonya R Bergeson; David B Pisoni; Rebecca A O Davis
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  Visual speech speeds up the neural processing of auditory speech.

Authors:  Virginie van Wassenhove; Ken W Grant; David Poeppel
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2005-01-12       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Auditory-visual speech perception in normal-hearing and cochlear-implant listeners.

Authors:  Sheetal Desai; Ginger Stickney; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Listening Effort in Younger and Older Adults: A Comparison of Auditory-Only and Auditory-Visual Presentations.

Authors:  Mitchell S Sommers; Damian Phelps
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Some normative data on lip-reading skills (L).

Authors:  Nicholas A Altieri; David B Pisoni; James T Townsend
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 1.840

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.